Treatment of Sperm
This post will detail some of the differences between the way American and Canadian jurisprudence deals with male ejaculate, affectionately known as semen or spunk.
The difference is that Americans treat spunk as a something that is given as a gift and Canadians see it as a weapon capable of inflicting emotional and physical harm. The following cases illustrate this difference.
In Chicago, a man sued his former lover who "secretly kept his sperm after oral sex and used it to get pregnant". The court ruled that he had delivered his sperm and as such it was a "gift" that she could use as she saw fit. Notice that no intercourse was had.
In Canada, the relevant case is R v. A.B. In that case the accused AB and the complainant HR were "romantically related". On a particular evening they were in HR residence and in her bed. And at some point AB ejaculated onto HR face. AB was subsequently charged with assault.
Now stepping back and taking stock, in one case make ejaculate was a gift and in other a weapon used to inflict physical and emotional harm. Also note that in both cases the ejaculate occured on the facial area.
I think this difference in jurisprudential views is a direct result of the weather difference; in those cold Canadian winters the lower temperature leads to increased viscosity of the spunk. The relatively heavier mass makes it more dangerous and as such its' classification as a weapon.
relevant links and info:
1.2003 ABPC 180